Liberty Demands Freedom (of Choice)
We have previously discussed three freedoms:
Freedom of choice.
Moral freedom.
Political freedom or liberty.
These notions are logically distinct but not independent. Freedom of choice is our power to make efficacious any finite motive for action that is itself not inherently determining. Freedom of choice is an active power of ours, by which we can end deliberation and set upon a course of action, and we could have done otherwise.
Moral freedom is the freedom we attribute to moral exemplars or saints. They are “free from vice” or “free from sin.” They act as they ought to act, habitually. This moral freedom is frequently called freedom for excellence.
Political freedom (or liberty) is freedom from external constraint. The freedom to pursue happiness in our environment at large; our being permitted to act upon the choices we make without interference to some significant, even if not unlimited, extent.
It is obvious that moral freedom supposes freedom of choice. It is through the appropriate use of freedom of choice that we acquire freedom for excellence, that we attain happiness and make good human lives for ourselves. And it is only because we could have done otherwise that we feel it is appropriate to praise those who become moral exemplars and condemn those who commit evil.
Political freedom or liberty suppose freedom of choice, as well. For we can only have liberty as a natural right if it corresponds to some natural need. In fact, we believe political freedom is a natural right precisely because it corresponds to the natural need of making good human lives for ourselves through our freedom of choice — it provides the space to act upon the choices we make, free from unreasonable constraint. To pursue happiness. However, if humans have no real freedom of choice, there can be no natural right to political freedom, because is no basis for it as a natural need. So just as moral freedom makes no sense apart from freedom of choice, neither does political freedom. Liberty demands freedom (of choice).
This is to clarify my thoughts, so there is no need to respond.
We need two things for a productive society. These are freedom to do what we want and morality to keep that freedom pointed to a constructive objective.
Eternity with God is the only valid objective if I am a Christian. All other goals are only constructive if they lead to that ultimate objective. Some of our dreams will be directly related to this supreme objective, while others are valid in the sense that they do not conflict with that objective but help us develop as a person seeking it.
This doesn't sound very clear but let me give examples. Studying for a test or preparing for a performance such as an athletic event, a debate or a dramatic performance, having fun at a vacation spot, or visiting unique places all help develop me. But only if the result is a person more aware of what is necessary to get through life, reach the ultimate objective and help others achieve the same goal. God made humans thrive socially and seek earthly rewards through achievement and certain pleasures. We were made that way.
All are conducive to a more productive person and one who will reach the ultimate objective. But only if these objectives are consistent with others achieving the goal of eternity. Our lives require a balance between the two.
Typing this comment is such an activity. Will it help me reach the objective of eternal life? I hope so. But more importantly, will it help others to achieve this objective? (I began to think of this as an essential objective while praying for others at Mass)
For most of history, society has restricted the objective of freedom and rationalized doing so as beneficial for all humanity. The Catholic Church was very guilty of this but was certainly not unique, as every society since the beginning of history has done the same. There has been part of Church policy called the Great Chain of Being, which essentially justified keeping 99% of the people in subservient positions. (I understand that the original purpose of this concept was to delineate various entities according to their nature but it ended up justifying doing so within humans also) Plato's Republic outlined this with its emphasis on certain types of people.
Freedom only really broke out once, in England in the 1500s, as Henry VIII could not provide an heir. So he rejected Catholicism to find another wife to produce a son. This rejection of Catholicism set up two Protestant religions within England, and they eventually fought for dominance. Since neither side won dominance, what happened, especially after the English Civil War of the 1640s was that it was agreed to let both exist. This had the eventual effect of allowing more freedom for the common person of both Protestant religions. But it did not do so for Catholics because their faith was forbidden.
This freedom led to increased economic activity at lower levels and allowed those at lower social levels to innovate and keep the rewards of their innovations. The epitome of this thinking happened in Pennsylvania, where Penn allowed all to thrive based on their efforts. He invited several thousand poor German farmers to live in what was then known as the Poor Man's country. This freedom then permeated all the colonies that became the United States.
The end result is that the modern world first began in England and then accelerated in the colonies, especially those that became the United States. We tend to accept technology today as a given without realizing it is the exception and not how lucky we are that it happened. It did not have to happen and it could disappear.
The obvious exception to freedom in the United States was slavery in the South due to the emergence of cotton as the most important crop in the US states. This is a clear example of the refusal to use morality to override freedom as a universal objective.
Nowhere in our current society are there examples of both freedom and morality used to check the privilege of freedom. What exists are some very blatant attempts to restrict freedom and an almost complete absence of morality. So we have gone in the United States from a society primarily based on liberty and morality to one absent of morality and increasingly restricting freedoms.